Public utility commission properly denied a protective order for trip data requested from Lyft based on a mobile ride-sharing application because the trip data was not proprietary information and did not reveal sales patterns. Affirmed and cross-appeal dismissed.
September 16, 2016 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Public Utility Commission • Protective Order • Proprietary Information • Motion to Intervene • Mootness
Lyft Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, PICS Case No. 16-1131 (Pa. Commw. Aug. 31, 2016) Simpson, J. (28 pages).
Public utility commission properly denied a protective order for trip data requested from Lyft based on a mobile ride-sharing application because the trip data was not proprietary information and did not reveal sales patterns. Affirmed and cross-appeal dismissed.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC is seeking talented and motivated associate attorneys for several positions. Candidates must be admi...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a litigator with at least 2-4 years of experience in all aspects of commercial litigation (i.e., depositions and ...
A prestigious matrimonial law firm in Garden City is seeking a skilled Associate Attorney with 5 to 7 years of experience in family law. The...
